Adam,
Thanks.
Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 18:28 +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
libjavascript-perl version 1.16-2 has an FTBS bug. 1.16-3 which
fixes it is working its way to unstable. A debdiff output is attached.
Could it be allowed through please?
Unblocked
Mehdi,
We now have a 0.1+nmu1 . Please could this now be granted an
exception to go into testing after the appropriate period of delay. Thanks.
Nicholas
Nicholas Bamber wrote:
Okay I will produce a 0.1-1. I just realized that I had no involvement
in 0.1 and so I could not make it a 0.1.1
What would be the version of the resulting upload?
Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
On 10/12/2010 12:33 AM, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
Today I noticed that libcgi-application-extra-plugin-bundle-perl
does not declare the copyright and license on two icons packaged with
one of the components. I have raised
Is downgrading the bug report and just waiting for the freeze to lift an
option?
Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
On 10/13/2010 10:31 AM, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
What would be the version of the resulting upload?
Given the diff between 0.1 and 0.2, I'd say 0.1.1.
attachment: nicholas.vcf
I would also like to draw your attention to #593102 . I don't know why
the complete absence of one of the components
counts as a minor bug.
Nicholas Bamber wrote:
Is downgrading the bug report and just waiting for the freeze to lift
an option?
Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
On 10/13/2010 10:31 AM
to lift is attractive if that is an option.
Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
On 10/13/2010 11:11 AM, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
I would also like to draw your attention to #593102 . I don't know
why the complete absence of one of the components counts as a minor
bug.
I might be wrong but do you want
Okay I will produce a 0.1-1. I just realized that I had no involvement
in 0.1 and so I could not make it a 0.1.1. Of course Jaldhar will still
have his say but I cannot see why he should object.
Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
On 10/13/2010 11:41 AM, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
Mehdi, When 0.2 was built
Please don't worry about 0.2+. I'll make sure that the bugs do not slip
back in.
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Mehdi Dogguy me...@dogguy.org writes:
On 10/13/2010 11:41 AM, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
Mehdi, When 0.2 was built there was a hope of getting it into
squeeze. I can understand
Today I noticed that libcgi-application-extra-plugin-bundle-perl does
not declare the copyright and license on two icons
packaged with one of the components. I have raised #599794 to indicate
this. There is currently a version 0.2 in experimental. Should we create
a 0.3 with the missing
Adam,
What do we need to do to push on with this? Do I need to raise a
formal request to have 3.20 removed from testing?
Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 18:53 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
Ideas so far:
1) reupload 3.17 (with an epoch or something)
2) create a 3.20 +
. In such a context it is hard to argue
for a roll forward to 3.22 and that only leaves rolling back.
Nicholas
Nicholas Bamber wrote:
Okay a sleepless might so I have some conclusions.
First of all any patched version needs to be based off 3.21 not 3.20
because the jump from 3.20 to 3.21 is really small
I am digging deeper but apart from confirming that the issues are real
and fixed by 3.22 I have not got anything yet. I am trying to build what
a patched 3.21 would be and get a more informed opinion but the required
patch does look big to me.
gregor herrmann wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010
Okay a sleepless might so I have some conclusions.
First of all any patched version needs to be based off 3.21 not 3.20
because the jump from 3.20 to 3.21 is really small and only affects test
files.
I extracted patch files for the suggested git commits. The total line
count is 492 though I
101 - 113 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
